Re: [Idr] Shepherd Review for draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Sue,

Wrt 2 IPR statements:
this is the same IPR, one published against individual draft, another, after idr has adopted it.

The author will be working to address your comments.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jun 7, 2019, 7:27 PM -0700, Susan Hares <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> Jeff, Ketan, Uma, Greg, and Nikos:
>
> My initial shepherd review of draft-ietf-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05.txt  has three points:
>
> 2 IPR statements means the draft will have to go through an IPR call for the IPR issues
> Error handling section needs to be added to the draft (requires -06.txt)
> The implementation report needs to be improved (see below)
>
> After all things are completed, I will start the WG LC.
>
> Sue Hares
> (Shepherd/WG co-chair)
>
>
> 2 IPR Statements
> -----------------------
> The 2 IPR statements for this draft means that after all authors indicate IPR knowledge,
> I will need to do a WG call for considering the draft with 2 IPR statements.
>
> Otherwise, the IESG may wish to cycle a discussion on the IPR.
> It takes less time to just do it up-front.
>
>
> Error handling
> ----------------
> This draft must add an error handling section that indicates what happen if the
> Node MSD TLV and the Link MSD TLV are incorrectly parsed.
> This is a requirement for the shepherd/WG chair to send this to WG LC or the
> QA reviews (RTG-DIR, OPS-DIR).
>
> I also would prefer to see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ketant-idr-rfc7752bis/
> as a WG document prior to sending this to the IESG.
>
> Could you check with the authors to determine its status?
> Otherwise, the error handling section in this draft will need
> to be improved.
>
>
> Implementation report improvement
> --------------------------------------
>
> The implementation reports for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-05 needs improving and your draft needs to have additional error handling specified.
>
> You need to indicate key features:
>
> MSD and SR routing interaction
> MSD advertisements MAY be useful even if SR itself is not enabled.
>
> MSD and BGP-LS interaction
> 2a) The BGP-LS speaker may also advertise the
>      MSD information for the local node and its links when not running any
>      link-state IGP protocol e.g. when running BGP as the only routing
>      protocol.
>
>      2b) This enables sharing of MSD-Types that may
>      be defined in the future by the IGPs in BGP-LS.
>
>
> Support for Node TLV parsing
> 3a – feature support ( yes/no)
>
> 3b-  MUST  (yes/20)
>
>          MSD-Value : a number in the range of 0-255.  For all MSD-Types,
>          0 represents the lack of ability to impose an MSD stack of any
>          depth; any other value represents that of the node.  This value
>          MUST represent the lowest value supported by any link
>          configured for use by the advertising protocol instance.
>
>
>         3c) Support for Error handling if Node TLV is incorrectly parsed – This needs to be specified your draft
>
> Support for Link MSD TLV
> 4a) support for feature
> 4b) support for error handling if Link MSD is incorrectly parsed
>
>
>